Jesus as Rabbi: The Orchard Method of PaRDeS (Reformed Caucus)

I have been praying for a while about a particular topic, waiting for when the Spirit to move me and let me know when the time is right. I have been ready to start this lesson several times, only to feel that “no, the time is not right, after all”.

Based on questions and discussions I’ve been involved in and a perceived ‘nudge’, I am going to delve into a system of rabbinical teaching almost certainly used by Jesus, which we now call ‘PaRDeS’. While this system was not formally documented until well into the third century, its underpinning methods are in evidence in the teachings of Jesus and some of His contemporary rabbinical sages, as well. It is a very powerful way of teaching and interpreting scripture - one that requires the Rabbi’s disciples to know the text they claim to love, and to know it well.

Before I go on, though, I need to add a disclaimer: All Hebrew contextual studies and research depend on historical record outside of the Holy Scriptures. These include (but are not limited to) early Jewish writings, Oral Law, records from early church and secular historians and other records (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). As such, I am not suggesting that these interpretations of First Century life are infallible, but that there is a spectrum of likelihood from probable to nearly certain underlying most of them.

With that behind us, let’s get to the ‘good stuff’, why it is important and how it can help revive your study of and meditation upon scripture. In making this somewhat easy to understand, I will have to generalize some things, so if you have a PhD in hermeneutics, please grant me forgivness for not going as deep as you’d prefer.

The Hebrew word pardes means “garden” or “orchard” or “paradise”, and it is in the garden of God’s Word that we find ways to experience Him and His truth. The consanants of this word - PRDS - form an acrostic for the four levels of meaning rabbis could use when teaching or interpreting scripture.

P - P’shat - the simple, or plain, meaning R - Remez - a “hint” or “clue” - an alluded meaning D - D’rash or Derasha - a story or interpretive meaning S - Sod - a “hidden” or esoteric meaning

Each of these methods of interpretation or instruction were used by Jesus in his teachings, and later on by His disciples when they recorded their gospels and Paul, though not as often, particularly not when writing to primarily gentile churches. The purpose for the use of these methods it to bring clarity to understanding God and His Truth - not to create multiple meanings or confusion. Keep this in mind as we continue.

The most important (and familiar) method of interpretation is that of P’shat - the literal or plain meaning of scripture. It is vastly important that we keep this in mind whenever the other methods are used, because it is the most important.

P’shat is the ’simplest’ meaning of the scipture being used (which sometimes isn’t really so simple). According to rabbinical literature, the p’shat must always be true when looking at scripture and cannot be contradicted by the other methods of interpretation.

When we come to Christ as a ‘child’, it is this simple meaning of scripture that we read, and it is the most common form of interpretation that forms our understanding of Him and our beliefs about what it means to follow him. It is important, then, that the p’shat not be in error, as this may lead us astray.

Some Jewish scholars have recorded Jesus as the master at this particular technique, so we will delve into this one a little bit more than the first. Basically, the rabbi, when using remez, will “hint” at a part of scripture, and based on that entire section of scripture being “hinted at”, he implies a deeper meaning. In order to be good disciples, we have to know the text so well that we can recognize what passage Jesus is quoting, so that we might better understand his meaning.

There are upwards of 30 - 50 (potentially more) remezim of Jesus recorded in the gospels, and additional ones used by his disciples in Acts and Paul in his letters. The following examples will show you how simple or complex some of these are, and how powerful they can be to understanding Jesus’ words.

Example: Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”(Matthew 27:46)

Here, Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. In doing so, He is actually ‘hinting’ at the entire text of Psalm 22. Go read it, and you’ll see! Pay particular attention to verses 13-18, and you will not be able to deny at the very least a strong coincidence (and I don’t know about you, but my God isn’t one of coincidence…)

Example: But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant.”Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him. “Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, ” ‘From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise’?” (Matthew 21:15-16)

From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.

Why is it God has ordained praise from their lips? Because of His enemies, in order to silence them.

Who is Jesus suggesting are the enemies of God? The chief priests and Torah teachers! ZING!

There are many more, even more powerful examples of Jesus’ remezim, but since this is a primer on PaRDES, I will save those for another day…

The method of d’rash (or midrash) is to bring out an interpretive meaning outside of the p’shat, often not intended by the original author. We do this frequently when we give a testimony about something that has happened in our lives and then relate a section of scripture to that event. The gospel writers also did this, or used a d’rash from oral teachings.

Example: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:22-23)

Here, Matthew is quoting from Isaiah 7:10-25, where Isaiah is predicting the timing of the destruction of two foreign kings, Rezin and Pekah. Matthew is either drawing upon a messianic d’rash in the first century B.C. predicting that the messiah would be born of a virgin, or some would say that he is drawing out a deeper meaning from Isaiah that was not originally understood from that text. (As an aside, it is from this use of d’rash that Rob Bell is likely pulling his ‘virgin Mary’ example from in Velvet Elvis, which has driven some of his critics to distraction.)

A much simpler example of d’rash was used by Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 in his allegory of Hagar and Sarah - pulling a completely different meaning from the story of Abraham, his wife and her maidservant.

The method of Sod is to use knowledge outside the scripture, or in an interpretive way that relies on understanding the letters, numbers and symbols used in scriptures. We have only a few examples of these, most of which are very complex in the explanation, and it is likely there are ones we will learn in the future, or we may never learn. Perhaps the easiest one to explain is that of the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000.

Around the Sea of Galilee, the northwest corner and its environs were where the orthodox Jews lived, and was the heart of where the hasidim (”pious ones”) lived. Because they believed themselves to be where the faithful people of Israel lived, hasidic sages referred to this region as the “Land of the Twelve” (meaning the 12 tribes, not literally, but figuratively). In Matthew 14:13-21, Jesus is in this region when he feeds the five thousand, and there are twelve baskets left. Along the southwest corner of the Sea of Galilee were the pagan, hellenistic cities of the Decapolis. The hasidim referred to this area as the “Land of the Seven”, in reference to the seven pagan nations driven from the land by Joshua. (They didn’t believe these people were actual decendants of the pagan nations - they were the spiritual decendents in their pagan practices). In Matthew 15:29-39, Jesus feeds the four thousand, and when they are done, there are seven baskets left over.

In his teachings right after this, Jesus taught that He was the bread of life, which confused his disciples and the people following him - just looking for Him to feed them. The “hidden” meaning, the sod, within this passage can only be understood by knowing about the “land of the twelve” and the “land of the seven”, because what Jesus is saying is that he is the Bread of Life for both the Jews (land of the twelve) and the Gentiles (land of the seven).

When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In understanding this Hebraic methodology of scriptural interpretation (the Bible is, after all, a book written primarily by Jewish authors to a primarily Jewish audience), you may be able to better understand some of the ways that there are layers present within scripture to help make it more clear as you study it more. These should also press upon us the importance of having the scriptures known as best as possible. Adolescent children in Jesus’ audience most likely had, at the very least, the Torah memorized, if not more sections of the Scriptures! Why should we expect less of ourselves?

Also, if you are a teacher, and you really want to understand how your Rabbi taught, you should study His methods and seek to use them to bring your students to better relationship with Him. I realize that many of these methods may seem new or foreign to many of us westerners, but they are old, if not older, than all of the New Testament writings, it is we who have chosen not to use them.

A note of caution: As with any tools, these are dangerous to those without the proper training and study. Remember, as I stated earlier, the p’shat - the simple, plain meaning of scripture- must not be contradicted by any further interpretation, and it is best to try and cross-reference and discuss scripture with others in the way that iron sharpens iron.

You might consider what Alfred Edersheim says about the approach of the rabbis:

If such was the “Halachah,” it is not so easy to define the limits of the “Haggadah.” The term, which is derived from the verb “higgid,” to “discuss,” or “tell about,” covers all that possessed not the authority of strict legal determinations. It was legend, or story, or moral, or exposition, or discussion, or application—in short, whatever the fancy or predilections of a teacher might choose to make it, so that he could somehow connect it either with Scripture or with a “Halachah.” For this purpose some definite rules were necessary to preserve, if not from extravagance, at least from utter absurdity. Originally there were four such canons for connecting the “Haggadah” with Scripture. Contracting, after the favourite manner of the Jews, the initial letters, these four canons were designated by the word ”Pardes“ (Paradise). They were—1. To ascertain the plain meaning of a passage (the “Peshat”); 2. To take the single letters of a word as an indication or hint (“Remes”) of other words, or even of whole sentences; 3. The “Derush,” or practical exposition of a passage; and 4. To find out the “Sod” (mystery), or mystical meaning of a verse or word. These four canons were gradually enlarged into thirty-two rules, which gave free vent to every kind of fancifulness. Thus one of these rules—the “Gematria” (geometry, calculation)—allowed the interpreter to find out the numerical value of the letters in a word—the Hebrew letters, like the Roman, being also numerals—and to substitute for a word one or more which had the same numerical value. Thus, if in Numbers 12:1 we read that Moses was married to an “Ethiopian woman” (in the original, “Cushith”), Onkelos substitutes instead of this, by “gematria,” the words, “of fair appearance”—the numerical value both of Cushith and of the words “of fair appearance” being equally 736. By this substitution the objectionable idea of Moses’ marrying an Ethiopian was at the same time removed. Similarly, the Mishnah maintains that those who loved God were to inherit each 310 worlds, the numerical value of the word “substance” (“Yesh”) in Proverbs 8:21 being 310. On the other hand, the canons for the deduction of a “Halachah” from the text of Scripture were much more strict and logical. Seven such rules are ascribed to Hillel, which were afterwards enlarged to thirteen.
Sketches of Jewish Social Life

This approach is clearly a concoction of the rabbis. It quite easy to discover a "system" and then superimpose it on the text of Scripture.

There is really no objective evidence that the four canons of the rabbis reflect an accurate way to interpret the Bible, or that Jesus was influenced by the canons.

"Sod YHVH lireyav ubreeto lehodeeam (The secret of ADONAI is with them that are in a state of awe, and the covenant is to those that are informed)." PSALM 25: 14

"...Yishareem [YHVH] sodo (The secret is with the righteous of ADONAI)." PROVERBS 3: 32

"Kee lo ya'aseh adonai YHVH davar kee im-galah sodo el-avadav han'vee'eem (The Lord ADONAI will not do anything without revealing the secrets to the servants, the Prophets)." AMOS 3: 7

Clips from:

RABBI GERSHON'S TEACHINGS FROM THE OHR SHEKINAH SANCTUARY
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id42.html

Ahhh, the Sod level !

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. Proverbs 25:2

Let me preface these additional remarks by saying that I'm no Hebrew rabbinic scholar. My views are based on what I've picked up here and there by reading and listening to others.

From the article:

In understanding this Hebraic methodology of scriptural interpretation (the Bible is, after all, a book written primarily by Jewish authors to a primarily Jewish audience),

I think we need to be careful accepting the subtle, underlying assumption that "Hebraic methodology" is always a good thing.

Assuming for a moment that the approach outlined in this article was commonplace at the time of Jesus (a point much in dispute), must we automatically believe that because it is of Hebrew origin (whatever that means, "rabbinic origin" I suppose is what is meant) that it is a good thing? I don't think so, for several reasons.

1) The teachings of the rabbis was often in conflict with the word of God. Examples are found in places like Mark 7.
2) This interpretive method obviously did not lead many of them to see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Law.
3) Jesus (and His apostles) was not about giving "hints" and finding "hidden meanings" in the OT passages. He was all about showing how "the law and prophets" pointed directly at Him.
4) Jesus came to Israel at its theological and spiritual nadir, not its zenith. The prophets had been silent for 400 years until John came on the scene. The entire system had been so corrupted by the leadership of Israel, that Christ's only recourse to to pronounce judgment upon them (Matt. 21:43). The preaching of repentance had fallen of deaf ears, as far as the teaching authority of Israel was concerned. Jesus was often at odds with the teachers of the law.
5) The record we have of "halakha" and "haggadah" (from whence we get PaRDeS) has been filtered to us through many generations of apostate Jews.

As I understand it, this four-fold approach (PaRDeS) applied primarily to the haggadah and involved much speculation and often led to very fanciful explanations and interpretations. There was a lot of numerology which seems to have some things in common with the false "Bible codes" techniques that have become popular in recent years. (Hidden truth in numbers, sequence of letters, etc.)

By contrast, on the halakha, which was a more structured method for interpreting the law, there developed what was known as the "Seven rules of Hillel". Most of these seem to be much closer to what Christians would view as a legitimate way of interpreting the Bible (the grammatical-historical method). E.g., Rule #6, analogy made from other passages of Scripture, and Rule #7 the explanation obtained from the context.

It's also interesting to note one particular encounter of Jesus with the teachers of the law:

"Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. " (Luke 2:46,47)

I think the reason for this astonishment, apart from young His age, was the utter differentness of Christ's teaching vs. the teaching of the rabbis. We are told, "And they were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Mark. 1:22) and "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, 'Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands!'" (Mark 6:2)

All things are being restored! Isn’t it great?

The "all things" being restored, from the context, is freedom of sin and iniquity.

"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, ... To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities." (Acts 3:19,26)

And the blessing of many generations through the promise to Abraham:

"You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'" (Acts 3:25)

There are some things which were "decayed and passing away" (Heb. 8:13) which will never be restored because they have been satisfied in Christ.

In truth "all things" are found in Christ and are available to those who are in Him.

"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." (Matt. 11:27)

This approach is clearly a concoction of the rabbis. It quite easy to discover a "system" and then superimpose it on the text of Scripture.

Matthew 23

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Topcat, monkey with a watch.

You are clearly broadcasting from Jezebel’s table.

Excellent article, Otto.

Doug, I hear what you're saying, but I think that there's a fallacy in automatically equating the abuses of some of the rabbis with a "Jewish" interpretive technique, especially when there are numerous examples (particularly in the Messianic prophecies and types) of Yeshua and the Apostles using PaRDeS. Remember, the Church has been just as guilty of adding tradition to Scripture and using it to circumvent a clear Scriptural teaching as the rabbis, even using a slightly different interpretive tradition.

In the end, the old addage, "Scripture is it's own best interpreter," must be employed:

Do we see the Apostles interpreting Scripture plainly? Well, duh.

Do we see them finding "hints" of the Messiah in figures and things from the Tanakh? Mechiezedek, anyone? Isaac? David? The Passover Lamb? The brazen serpent on a pole? Clearly, yes.

Do we see them digging deeper into the Scriptures to find new meanings? The author has already cited the Immanuel prophecy. What about Sha'ul (Paul) using Deu. 25:4 to defend his right to be supported in his ministry in 1 Co. 9:9? What about the illustration of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians?

So we see them deriving hidden meanings based on numerical values and the like? This is less visible (and I tend to leave it alone), but it seems to still be there. The author has given us one example. Another that I'm aware of is the geneology in Matthew: Did you ever wonder why Matthew made sure all of the three divisions of Yeshua's geneology had exactly fourteen people? Why not seven, or twelve? The answer is that fourteen equals the gematria (numerical value) of David's name: (Dalet) 4 + (Vav) 6 + (Dalet) 4 = 14.

We find other hidden meanings in the layout of the Tabernacle and the Camp of Israel that only become clear once we compare them to chapters 4 and 5 of the Revelation and chapters 1 and 10 of Ezekiel. I'll save elaborating on that until I've the time to write a whole article on it.

In any case, PaRDeS simply gives us an acronym and a systemized set of names for the examples the Apostles have left us on how they (not just the rabbis) interpreted Scripture. We can also find similar examples in mainline Christian liturature, such as Augustine's City of God, which makes heavy use of what the rabbis called remez and midrash. His failure is that he didn't return to the p'shat often enough.

Actually, it's kinda funny to see amills like TC objecting to "hints" and "diggings," since they so often interpret the Tanakh strictly according to those latter methods, never returning to the plain, literal meaning--if they did, they'd become premillennial.

And that's where we always have to return to. P'shat literally means, "to make a road." We must first cut our road through the wilderness with the plain, literal meaning of Scripture. Once we have built that road, and tread it well, we can afford to wander a little away from it, secure in the knowledge that we can always find our way back to the road and not get lost.

When we think we've found a hint of something deeper, a prophetic or spiritual type, we simply return to the plain road. If the plain, literal interpretation of Scripture contradicts our discovery, then we accordingly reject or modify it so that the plain meaning of Scripture is not violated.

The problem is not that people delve deeper into the Scriptures; it's when they get so enamored of a supposed discovery that they twist the plain, literal meaning of Scripture to make it fit.

However much I disagree with topcat on some issues, I think he makes some good points, especially in the authors assumption that Jesus was using any type of rabbanical interpretation methods. Besides the passages that topcat quoted, I recently came across this one during study for tabernacles:

Joh 7:14 But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach.
Joh 7:15 The Jews then were astonished, saying, "How has this man become learned, having never been educated?"
Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

It's kind of silly to think that Christ would have to "learn" any method of scriptural interpretation or exegetical techniques from men. When it comes to Jesus using "hints" it seems much simpler to assume that the people he was talking to were well versed in scripture and a simple reference to a particular passage was sufficient to get the point across. There's no reason to assume that he's purposely employing "remez" to make his point.

We find other hidden meanings in the layout of the Tabernacle and the Camp of Israel that only become clear once we compare them to chapters 4 and 5 of the Revelation and chapters 1 and 10 of Ezekiel.

These types and meanings can certainly be revealed by the holy spirit. I would agree that we can be taught these things by others, but unless the holy spirit reveals it to us, we simply won't see it no matter the technique applied.

I especially think topcat made some good points here:

1) The teachings of the rabbis was often in conflict with the word of God. Examples are found in places like Mark 7.

Absolutely.

2) This interpretive method obviously did not lead many of them to see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Law.

True, because of the spiritual blindness mentioned above. The method is worthless on it's own.

3) Jesus (and His apostles) was not about giving "hints" and finding "hidden meanings" in the OT passages. He was all about showing how "the law and prophets" pointed directly at Him.

Well...not exclusively so to speak, they also spoke strongly about the coming kingdom. But without Christ it's kind of pointless.

4) Jesus came to Israel at its theological and spiritual nadir, not its zenith. The prophets had been silent for 400 years until John came on the scene. The entire system had been so corrupted by the leadership of Israel, that Christ's only recourse to to pronounce judgment upon them (Matt. 21:43). The preaching of repentance had fallen of deaf ears, as far as the teaching authority of Israel was concerned. Jesus was often at odds with the teachers of the law.

Can't disagree. I would compare the Judaism of that time to traditional Christianity today. Both have fallen far from where they should be.

5) The record we have of "halakha" and "haggadah" (from whence we get PaRDeS) has been filtered to us through many generations of apostate Jews.

I'm not sure of this since I'm not much of a student of Jewish thought. But I'm not a student of Jewish thought precisely because today's Jews are descendants of those that rejected Christ.

I guess the problem I see is that this kind of stuff tends to muck up the message. It makes it more complicated than it needs to be and might lead to confusion among some.

However much I disagree with topcat on some issues, I think he makes some good points, especially in the authors assumption that Jesus was using any type of rabbanical interpretation methods.

Ah, but you are assuming that the PaRDeS is something the rabbis invented--what if it is something they discovered which is intrinsic to the Scriptures? That's far more consistant with the NT use of the methods.

Besides the passages that topcat quoted, I recently came across this one during study for tabernacles:

That isn't indicative that Yeshua had no education, but that He had not been the beneficiary of a higher education or formal ordination. Clearly, He spoke and read Hebrew and Aramaic, probably knew at least passible Greek, and had the Tanakh memorized. He asked questions of the priests and rabbis in the Temple as a child (Luke 2:46). So He had at least the normal education that every male Jewish child had in the synagogue.

Their surprise was that He was breaching the normal social barriers: Only ordained rabbis were allowed to make halacha (rulings) with authority. Scribes, the equivalent of lay Sunday-school teachers, were allowed to read from the Tanakh and explain the rulings of the rabbis, but were not allowed to come up with rulings themselves.

Now here comes along a carpenter from Galilee, who doesn't have his "diploma" from the schools of Hillel or Shimmei, so to speak, who has never had a rabbi lay hands on Him to ordain Him. He's not even a scribe. He's got the equivalent of a formal middle-school education, but that's it. And yet He speaks with such wisdom and authority that even the Pharisees are compelled to call Him "Rabbi."

Imagine if the young construction-worker in your church suddenly stood up and started challenging the Pastor with a string of letters after his name--and was winning!--and you'll get an idea of why they were amazed at Yeshua, and why those in power, who had jumped through all the educational and social hoops to get there, were offended by Him.

It should be noted that even without ordination, Yeshua still used the rabbinic interpretive techniques, as noted in the article--which suggests that the techniques were correct! He even used established rabbinic halacha to defend His positions: "And He said unto them, 'What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days"(Mat. 12:11-12).

Yeshua's wisdom was clearly not of man, nor His teachings. But that doesn't eliminate the indications in Scripture that Man, specifically the rabbis, had correctly uncovered the right means of interpreting Scripture: A multilayered approach. The fact that they didn't apply that interpretive technique correctly in certain instances does not mean that the technique itself is de facto flawed.--any more than the Church's abuses automatically mean that all of its interpretations are automatically wrong by default.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.